The administration has now pledged $350 million for the tsunami disaster, which is more like it. This tit-for-tat game of one-upmanship between the US and Europe, upping their grants in order to show each other up, has been great for those stricken by disaster. Hopefully the EU and individual European nations will fear looking bad in the face of the $350 million announcement and up their totals as well.

It'll take more than a few hundred million to prevent a calamity of unprecedented proportions in the nations affected by the tsunami.

While better late than never, we lost a golden opportunity to score a huge PR victory in the world stage, and, with the largest muslim nation in the world (Indonesia).

Had we announced $350 million from day one, it would've scored a direct hit -- backing up rhetoric about American generosity. Instead, it looks like we're responding to criticism about American stinginess, rather than acting out of the goodness of our hearts. (THAT'S THE POINT TRUMPT, NAPLES, FRANK)

This isn't a question about reality, but about perception. And in the global battle against terrorism, our enemies are outflanking us in the PR department. Running circles around us, in fact. And again, that's not liberal Kos saying that, but Bush and Rumfeld's own Pentagon:

Quote:

The information campaign -- or as some still would have it, "the war of ideas," or the struggle for "hearts and minds" -- is important to every war effort. In this war it is an _essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

While $350 million sounds like a lot of money (and it is), in fact, it's the cost of 38 hours of operation in Iraq (the math).

If this war is tied to the struggle for hearts and minds, and if winning the public relations battle is paramount for success, how would $350 million best be spent? In less than two days of combat operations in Iraq, or by winning global accolades for generosity and selflessness? Heck, making it $1 billion would've blown the socks of the world, while representing only about five days of combat operations in Iraq.

But the idiots in the White House think in terms of bombs and body counts, not in winning hearts and minds. Which is yet one more reason, in a long line of reasons, that we're losing the war.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

I understand your point, but if Bush had run to the White House press gallery on Day One, and announced a $350 million aid package while the size and scale of the disaster were largely unknown, I'd be calling for his resignation.

You don't play politics with a disaster of this scale. With most of the roads still closed to stricken areas and no relief operatives on the ground yet, actions like that would have been ill-advised, albeit politically useful.

Originally posted by Frank777I understand your point, but if Bush had run to the White House press gallery on Day One, and announced a $350 million aid package while the size and scale of the disaster were largely unknown, I'd be calling for his resignation.

You don't play politics with a disaster of this scale. With most of the roads still closed to stricken areas and no relief operatives on the ground yet, actions like that would have been ill-advised, albeit politically useful.

Excuse me but on day one they already knew it was going to be bad. At the time the 5th strongest earthquake since 1900! Later it was upgraded to 4th.

A good portion of the people there live on the coast.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Why do you think people were complaining about him not showing up?

Your argument is lame.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by jimmacExcuse me but on day one they already knew it was going to be bad. At the time the 5th strongest earthquake since 1900! Later it was upgraded to 4th.

A good portion of the people there live on the coast.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Why do you think people were complaining about him not showing up?

Your argument is lame.

No, what is really lame is Monday Morning quarterbacking about something as stupid as appearances when the correct money amounts are being given and the correct actions are being taken.

It is idiotic to proclaim that the substance is unimportant but argue that Bush essentually did it without enough, or with the wrong sense of "style."

Of course that is all folks like you have left.

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel,(your favorite phrase) I mean all you can complain about is that he doesn't look "presidential enough" in Texas and continually question his motivations when the right actions occur. What nonsense!

Originally posted by Frank777I understand your point, but if Bush had run to the White House press gallery on Day One, and announced a $350 million aid package while the size and scale of the disaster were largely unknown, I'd be calling for his resignation.

You don't play politics with a disaster of this scale. With most of the roads still closed to stricken areas and no relief operatives on the ground yet, actions like that would have been ill-advised, albeit politically useful.

yeah right.

you and your canadian freaks...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Originally posted by trumptmanNo, what is really lame is Monday Morning quarterbacking about something as stupid as appearances when the correct money amounts are being given and the correct actions are being taken.

It is idiotic to proclaim that the substance is unimportant but argue that Bush essentually did it without enough, or with the wrong sense of "style."

Of course that is all folks like you have left.

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel,(your favorite phrase) I mean all you can complain about is that he doesn't look "presidential enough" in Texas and continually question his motivations when the right actions occur. What nonsense!

Nick

Look it's time you learned something isn't stupid just because you say it is. This had nothing to do with style. Bush simply wasn't where he was supposed to be ( to perform his job ) on time ( again ). If this was the private sector his boss ( us ) would be eye balling his performance and he'd receive a warning.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by jimmacLook it's time you learned something isn't stupid just because you say it is. This had nothing to do with style. Bush simply wasn't where he was supposed to be ( to perform his job ) on time ( again ). If this was the private sector his boss ( us ) would be eye balling his performance and he'd receive a warning.

You are telling me that if you were at a satellite office where you you were kept fully informed and executed all your expected responsibilities and duties during a time frame that you would still receive a warning?

Really, why even try with you? You're not making any sense. I posted the pics from the press conference. Could you tell where Bush was at from those pics? I suppose if Bush had been on AirForceOne he would have been incapable of doing his job?

We live in a modern age where people can be informed and render decisions from more than a desk with a wired landline phone to it. I find it strangely ironic that you believe Bush can utilize such technology during say... a debate (Bush was wearing a wire... I swear was what I believe you proclaimed).. but not during say... a decision regarding information for relief aid. Your thinking and understanding on this matter is just a little twisted.

I mean you portray Bush as just a stupid puppet anyway. Didn't the little people pulling his strings in your fantasy world likely stay on their thrones in Washington where they were planning their new world order/new monarchy/new dark ages, etc.

I suppose it could have been worse. He could have been wind suring off of Nantucket.

Have the last word if you want, but your reasoning is just impossible twisted.

To me, as a non US-citizen, this seems to boil down to a lot of people being very unhappy with a president that prefers to run the country from his ranch down in Texas.
They are many of the same people who are unhappy with the president in the first place. So I guess this is to be expected.

But is should ring some bells when the Head of the UN Aid offices says he is disapointed with the initial western donations. And it did help.

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

Originally posted by trumptmanYou are telling me that if you were at a satellite office where you you were kept fully informed and executed all your expected responsibilities and duties during a time frame that you would still receive a warning?

Really, why even try with you? You're not making any sense. I posted the pics from the press conference. Could you tell where Bush was at from those pics? I suppose if Bush had been on AirForceOne he would have been incapable of doing his job?

We live in a modern age where people can be informed and render decisions from more than a desk with a wired landline phone to it. I find it strangely ironic that you believe Bush can utilize such technology during say... a debate (Bush was wearing a wire... I swear was what I believe you proclaimed).. but not during say... a decision regarding information for relief aid. Your thinking and understanding on this matter is just a little twisted.

I mean you portray Bush as just a stupid puppet anyway. Didn't the little people pulling his strings in your fantasy world likely stay on their thrones in Washington where they were planning their new world order/new monarchy/new dark ages, etc.

I suppose it could have been worse. He could have been wind suring off of Nantucket.

Have the last word if you want, but your reasoning is just impossible twisted.

Nick

Blah, blah, blah. You really can go on about nothing can't you.

The way I see Bush is the public servant. Our public servant to manage the country. We hire him ( elected ) we pay his salary ( taxes ) and we can fire him ( not reelected or even impeached ).

Actually I never commented on the wire thing.

By the way Clinton had time to respond and do something.

As for the rest it's just ranting about nothing as far as I can tell.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by NewTo me, as a non US-citizen, this seems to boil down to a lot of people being very unhappy with a president that prefers to run the country from his ranch down in Texas.
They are many of the same people who are unhappy with the president in the first place. So I guess this is to be expected.

But is should ring some bells when the Head of the UN Aid offices says he is disapointed with the initial western donations. And it did help.

Yes, but we must remember that the head of the U.N. was managing this whole affair while on his ski vacation.

Originally posted by bborofkaWe are all so partisan here. No matter what Bush does, the progressives will hate it and the conservatives will justify it. From sitting in his chair for 7 min. after he is told a plane hit the 2nd tower (oh, he just didn't want to scare the children), to the ridiculous amount of vacation time he takes on his ranch (it's hard work dammit!) to not making any symbolic or outreaching efforts to help the countries struggling from the tsunamis (he's done all he needs to do from his ranch), no one is going to change any minds here. If Clinton were acting the way Bush is, the Republicans would be all over him like a flock of hawks.

It only matters how the media portrays things and what the general consensus of the people is.

True. He has zero "capital." His margin of victory is the smallest ever for an incumbent. And I firmly believe Ohio disenchanted blacks and others from voting and that it was screwed up.

Anyhow...

Quote:

By the way Clinton had time to respond and do something.

Even after surgery. Yup.

Quote:

The administration has now pledged $350 million for the tsunami disaster, which is more like it. This tit-for-tat game of one-upmanship between the US and Europe, upping their grants in order to show each other up, has been great for those stricken by disaster. Hopefully the EU and individual European nations will fear looking bad in the face of the $350 million announcement and up their totals as well.

It'll take more than a few hundred million to prevent a calamity of unprecedented proportions in the nations affected by the tsunami.

While better late than never, we lost a golden opportunity to score a huge PR victory in the world stage, and, with the largest muslim nation in the world (Indonesia).

Had we announced $350 million from day one, it would've scored a direct hit -- backing up rhetoric about American generosity. Instead, it looks like we're responding to criticism about American stinginess, rather than acting out of the goodness of our hearts. (THAT'S THE POINT TRUMPT, NAPLES, FRANK)

This isn't a question about reality, but about perception. And in the global battle against terrorism, our enemies are outflanking us in the PR department. Running circles around us, in fact. And again, that's not liberal Kos saying that, but Bush and Rumfeld's own Pentagon:

quote:
The information campaign -- or as some still would have it, "the war of ideas," or the struggle for "hearts and minds" -- is important to every war effort. In this war it is an _essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

While $350 million sounds like a lot of money (and it is), in fact, it's the cost of 38 hours of operation in Iraq (the math).

If this war is tied to the struggle for hearts and minds, and if winning the public relations battle is paramount for success, how would $350 million best be spent? In less than two days of combat operations in Iraq, or by winning global accolades for generosity and selflessness? Heck, making it $1 billion would've blown the socks of the world, while representing only about five days of combat operations in Iraq.

But the idiots in the White House think in terms of bombs and body counts, not in winning hearts and minds. Which is yet one more reason, in a long line of reasons, that we're losing the war.

Excellent post which was not even addressed by the Bush voters here. Trumpt Naples and Frank can we take a break from the name calling?

"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox

Originally posted by AquaticTrue. He has zero "capital." His margin of victory is the smallest ever for an incumbent. And I firmly believe Ohio disenchanted blacks and others from voting and that it was screwed up.

Anyhow...

Even after surgery. Yup.

Excellent post which was not even addressed by the Bush voters here. Trumpt Naples and Frank can we take a break from the name calling?

I don't know, will you libs ever stop calling names?

Anyway...

It appears that Bush is leading and now Clinton is following. Clinton also is defending the president against the attacks by the media and the elite:

Of course the media is not reporting the full interview with the 2 ex's. But here is some of it:

"Clinton, interviewed on CNN, was asked about criticism that Bush had been slow to respond.

"In pledging $350 million in government aid and sending those military helicopters to Aceh to deliver those life-saving supplies to the Indonesians," Clinton said, "and in promising that we would do more through the government if need be I don't see how he could have done more. I think that right now we are just where we need to be.

"And we shouldn't be looking back," Clinton added. "We should be looking forward."" - January 4, 2005 - LA Times

Clinton basically said that Bush detractors were way out of line, in the interview I saw. When the transcript surfaces I will post it... or should I say if?

I think that both Clinton and Bush are showing exemplary leadership right now, Bush in leading and Clinton allowing himself to be used for the greater good.

Originally posted by NaplesXI don't know, will you libs ever stop calling names?

Anyway...

It appears that Bush is leading and now Clinton is following. Clinton also is defending the president against the attacks by the media and the elite:

Of course the media is not reporting the full interview with the 2 ex's. But here is some of it:

"Clinton, interviewed on CNN, was asked about criticism that Bush had been slow to respond.

"In pledging $350 million in government aid and sending those military helicopters to Aceh to deliver those life-saving supplies to the Indonesians," Clinton said, "and in promising that we would do more through the government if need be I don't see how he could have done more. I think that right now we are just where we need to be.

"And we shouldn't be looking back," Clinton added. "We should be looking forward."" - January 4, 2005 - LA Times

Clinton basically said that Bush detractors were way out of line, in the interview I saw. When the transcript surfaces I will post it... or should I say if?

I think that both Clinton and Bush are showing exemplary leadership right now, Bush in leading and Clinton allowing himself to be used for the greater good.

Stand up job.

As long as he agrees with Bush.

I think what Clinton was really saying is there is a much more important issue at hand and not to focus on the differences in party philosophies.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Not that i think that helping the victims of this disaster as fast as possible is a bad idea. Rather, I think that the criticism of this president is proving the unreasonableness of his detractors. You know who you are.

Let me explain:

We have heard for a year or more now, that GWB has rushed this country into a war over phantom WMDs.

I and many have repeatedly stated that there were many reasons for the war, and certainly not the least was the humanitarian reason. Of course those libs that have posted here seem to conveniently poo-poo that idea in favor of bashing the current occupant of the White House. Uh-hem <cough> Jimmac <cough> Seggy <cough> ... you get the idea.

Let's look at the current accusations, shall we.

1. Too slow to act to a major humanitarian crisis.

The very same people have stated they were willing to let SH stay in power for an unspecified period of time when they knew that SH and his band of thugs were killing on average of 320 innocent victims a week. That means he surpassed the number of victims in this current crisis, 10-15 years ago.

And yet these same people say GWB acted too hastily to remove SH. How can these same people have these widely different values of human life?

2. The US is not wielding enough of it's power to help in this crisis.

Yet these same people will try to convince us that the US showed too much power when helping the Iraqi people, while protecting it's interests. We are told by these people that the US is wrong to be the world's policeman, yet they expect us to be the world's hook and ladder crew.

Seems, once again to show hypocrisy. No. it definitely shows it.

The hypocrisy that these two situations reveal are numerous and disturbing.

It seems to me that the more you libs talk the more you reveal your values, warped by pure partisanship.

You people should be ashamed, but you will wear it as a badge of honor, I'm sure.

Originally posted by NaplesXYou know, I just realized how hypocritical some here are.

Not that i think that helping the victims of this disaster as fast as possible is a bad idea. Rather, I think that the criticism of this president is proving the unreasonableness of his detractors. You know who you are.

Let me explain:

We have heard for a year or more now, that GWB has rushed this country into a war over phantom WMDs.

I and many have repeatedly stated that there were many reasons for the war, and certainly not the least was the humanitarian reason. Of course those libs that have posted here seem to conveniently poo-poo that idea in favor of bashing the current occupant of the White House. Uh-hem <cough> Jimmac <cough> Seggy <cough> ... you get the idea.

Let's look at the current accusations, shall we.

1. Too slow to act to a major humanitarian crisis.

The very same people have stated they were willing to let SH stay in power for an unspecified period of time when they knew that SH and his band of thugs were killing on average of 320 innocent victims a week. That means he surpassed the number of victims in this current crisis, 10-15 years ago.

And yet these same people say GWB acted too hastily to remove SH. How can these same people have these widely different values of human life?

2. The US is not wielding enough of it's power to help in this crisis.

Yet these same people will try to convince us that the US showed too much power when helping the Iraqi people, while protecting it's interests. We are told by these people that the US is wrong to be the world's policeman, yet they expect us to be the world's hook and ladder crew.

Seems, once again to show hypocrisy. No. it definitely shows it.

The hypocrisy that these two situations reveal are numerous and disturbing.

It seems to me that the more you libs talk the more you reveal your values, warped by pure partisanship.

You people should be ashamed, but you will wear it as a badge of honor, I'm sure.

I'm sure everyone took your message to heart.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination